İsmihan Sultan’s (ca. 1544–85) Friday mosque in the coastal town of Mangalia along the Black Sea littoral is the oldest remaining Ottoman monument at the south end of the Dobruja region in present-day Romania.1 It is my hope that this essay will open new horizons that may inspire further research on this little-known, fascinating monument and others connected with it (see figs. 9.1a–b). The most detailed information on Princess İsmihan’s mosque was provided in the restorer-architect and architectural historian Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi’s 1981 book cataloging Ottoman monuments in Romania and Bulgaria. Being chiefly concerned with documenting the mosque’s formal features, he refrained from interpreting the contextual and personal factors that may have motivated the princess’s architectural patronage. Ayverdi consulted her endowment deed (waqfiyya) and briefly summarized its contents, but without considering its connection to the interlinked endowments of her influential husband: Sokollu Mehmed Pasha (grand vizier between 1565 and 1579), who was a convert to Islam born into a Serbian Orthodox family in Bosnia.2
In my book on the age of the chief royal architect Sinan (d. 1588), the patronage of this power couple looms large, as both of them commissioned some of his most celebrated monuments. However, the Mangalia mosque appears only briefly because it is excluded from Sinan’s corpus in his autobiographical treatises.3 Focusing on this relatively modest mosque in a port city on the Black Sea, the present essay combines close-up and wide-lens perspectives to offer a new interpretation of its meaning within the architectural patronage profiles of the princess and her husband. Scrutinizing the previously unnoted connection of İsmihan Sultan’s mosque with an extensive transregional network of monuments demonstrates how these buildings collectively generated an empire-wide web of infrastructures and portability mechanisms, even though they were not portable themselves.4 The connectedness of those monuments, in turn, promotes connective thinking and allows me to engage directly with this volume’s theme of artistic interactions between Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean in the early modern period.
1 The Princess, Her Husband, and Familial Networks
Given the prestigious status of Princess İsmihan as the eldest daughter of the reigning Sultan Selim II (r. 1566–74) and his Venetian-born chief wife Nurbanu Sultan (d. 1583) at the time when the Mangalia mosque was being built, it is not unlikely that its plan was prepared in the office of the corps of royal architects headed by Sinan. This is all the more likely as her husband Sokollu Mehmed Pasha was the all-powerful grand vizier of the Ottoman Empire throughout the reign of his father-in-law.5 During the construction of the princess’s mosque (ca. 1568–73), the chief architect Sinan was busy in Edirne building her royal father’s grandiose Selimiye mosque complex (1568–74). Therefore, one may speculate that a ground plan drawn on paper for her building project could have easily been sent from Edirne to Mangalia (about 400 km to the north), perhaps with one of Sinan’s assistants, even though the construction would have been realized by local builders.6 Alternatively, this project may have been assigned to a city architect in one of the Ottoman provinces (vilāyet) in Europe, the closest being Rumelia (Rumeli) and Buda (Budin).7 In Rumelia province, Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s two sons, Hasan Beg and Kurt Kasım Beg, born from a concubine prior to his marriage with the princess in 1562, were based as district governors (sanjak begs) in Bosnia and Herzegovina respectively around 1571–72. The well-connected grand vizier’s nephew Mustafa Pasha held the same posts before being promoted to governor-general (beylerbeyi) of Budin province for twelve years (1566–78), distinguishing himself as a prolific patron of architecture. These relatives may have acted as intermediaries facilitating the logistics of the construction in Mangalia, located within the Rumelia province.
The monuments built for Sokollu Mehmed Pasha and İsmihan Sultan were legally interconnected by the individual, though cross-referenced, unpublished endowment deeds of the couple.8 The princess’s waqfiyya was legally registered in January 1573, and that of her husband shortly thereafter in April 1574. Both were written in Ottoman Turkish by the scholar Abdülgani b. Emirşah who was a professor employed in İsmihan’s madrasa in the Eyüb district of Istanbul, built by Sinan next to a family mausoleum, where Sokollu Mehmed Pasha and their children are buried, along with a school for Qurʾan recitation (see fig. 9.4).9 Because of her incomparable royal blood, the princess is buried in the mausoleum of her august parents and siblings, constructed by Sinan next to the Hagia Sophia mosque in Istanbul. The endowment deeds of the couple state that whoever died first would become the waqf administrator of the other. Moreover, during their lifetime, and posthumously, if the income of one person’s waqf should not suffice to meet expenses, funding would be provided from the other’s endowment. Upon their deaths, their children would administer these waqfs over the generations and enjoy the surplus income, which was enormous even after deducting all expenses. A branch of that family descending from this couple’s only surviving son, İbrahim Khan (d. 1622), was honored by his grandfather Selim II with the royal title of “Khan” matching his mother’s name: İsmihan means “with the name of Khan.” Such was the importance of the İbrahim Khanzade (Descendants of İbrahim Khan) family during the eighteenth century that, should the Ottoman dynastic lineage cease, its members were considered legitimate successors to the sultanate.10 The only other candidates for that lofty position were the khans of Crimea (descending from the Mongol Golden Horde), who had been the Ottoman dynasty’s tribute-paying vassals since the late fifteenth century.
İsmihan Sultan’s involvement in the politics of the court helped secure her husband’s position as grand vizier for fourteen years. European primary sources abound with eye-witness accounts of the grand vizier’s subordinate relationship vis-à-vis his royal wife, who was forty years younger than him. She had been given to him in marriage in 1562 by her grandfather Sultan Süleyman (r. 1520–66) as a reward for Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s contribution to Crown Prince Selim’s victory in the princely war of succession in Konya. The Venetian diplomat Marino Cavalli (1567) observed that the “intelligent and prudent” grand vizier, who matched his royal wife in religious “bigotry,” enjoyed unparalleled authority as the true “emperor” of the Ottoman dominions (see fig. 9.2).11 A Ragusan ambassador in Rome reported to the pope that Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, who ruled the empire of his passive and hedonistic father-in-law as “virtual emperor,” was only afraid of his much younger wife İsmihan. Exerting formidable control over him, she occasionally insulted the pasha as “Vlach” (boorish bumpkin), and should he fail to please her, he risked deposition.12
European observers were astonished by the subordination of viziers to their royal wives, whose authority over their husbands confounded ordinary gender relations. A Venetian diplomat, Costantino Garzoni, remarked in 1573: “These sultanas are considered by their husbands not as wives, but as masters, since there is no comparison whatsoever between the former’s royal blood and that of the pashas, who are all slaves, therefore, they revere their wives with great submission and are forbidden from having other wives.”13 The chaplain of the Habsburg embassy in Istanbul, Stefan Gerlach (1573–77), observed that when a pasha married a sultana, he had to divorce his former wife, even if they had conceived children.14 Indeed, Sokollu was required to send away the concubine who gave birth to his two aforementioned sons when he married İsmihan Sultan.15 Gerlach adds that “men who are willing to take sultanas as brides become slaves of their wives, who reserve the right to remind them ‘You were once my father’s slave,’ and they must obey whatever their wives demand.”16
According to Gerlach’s informant, Sokollu’s German clockmaker Oswald, the pasha’s royal wife was “small and ugly in countenance, but cheerful and entertaining in disposition.”17 The grand vizier complied with the sultana’s wishes, visiting her palace quarters only when she chose to summon him with a eunuch.18 She carried a dagger as a token of authority, like a cavalry soldier, and had 100 select female attendants among her household of 300 women, who were dressed up in the same way as male pages, with silk brocade costumes and bejeweled gold belts fitted with daggers.19 The sultana possessed her own great treasure, overflowing with the jewels presented as gifts to her husband, who was “richer than any German Prince,” according to the same clockmaker.20 Upon the assassination of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha in 1579, İsmihan Sultan remarried in 1584 to a younger man of her own choice. Her second husband was the handsome governor of Budin (Buda), whose forcefully divorced wife reportedly moved to tears the city’s stones and mountains with her inconsolable lamentations. A year later, in 1585, the princess passed away during childbirth.21
2 İsmihan Sultan’s Mangalia Mosque as an Urban Development Project
Publications and websites often provide confused and contradictory bits of information on İsmihan Sultan’s mosque in Mangalia. For instance, hypothetical dates proposed for its construction range from 1525 or 1573 to 1575, and as late as 1590.22 Just as the date 1525 is preposterous since its patron was not even born at that time, the equally illogical date 1590 would make it a posthumous monument completed after her death. That the mosque was already completed by 1573, with its appointed personnel in place, is demonstrated by her endowment deed registered during that year. Interestingly, both the princess and her husband separately endowed landed and commercial properties in and near Mangalia, as we shall see below.
İsmihan Sultan’s endowment deed lists the Mangalia mosque as one of her three main charitable socioreligious monuments, testifying to its considerable importance. The other two were monumental complexes built by Sinan in the capital Istanbul. One of them is her spectacular Friday mosque in the “Çatladı Kapusı” quarter (i.e., Kadırgalimanı near the Hippodrome), constructed between 1567–68 and 1571–72. This ashlar masonry domed sanctuary, boasting a fountained forecourt with arched marble colonnades and lavish Iznik tile revetments, is particularly renowned for its harmonious proportions and the perfect balance between structure and ornament (see fig. 9.3). While the princess endowed the mosque itself, the accompanying madrasa and the subsequently added dervish convent, completed in 1574, were separately founded by her husband as part of the same complex in his own endowment deed. The second complex listed in İsmihan’s endowment deed is her aforementioned madrasa in the Eyüb district, which abuts the familial domed mausoleum of her husband and their children, both of them completed in 976 (1568–69) (see fig. 9.4). This, too, was a jointly endowed complex by the couple. Its mausoleum, featuring sumptuous Iznik tile revetments, and its subsequently built freestanding domed prayer hall, dated 987 (1579) and functioning as a school for Qurʾan recitation, belonged to the grand vizier’s endowment. The nearby public fountains created by him ranged in date from 1567–68 to 1570–71. Both multifunctional complexes co-endowed by husband and wife carry Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s name, although she was the main founder, an unfortunate manifestation of male chauvinism and traditional gender roles that has erased her memory from the public sphere.23
Compared to her foundations in Istanbul, İsmihan Sultan’s mosque in Mangalia is an unassuming structure lacking a masonry dome, precious marble colonnades, and Iznik tiles. Nevertheless, its delightful wooden-pillared spacious portico overlooking a picturesque garden with tombstones adds to its intimate charm in close communion with nature. This monument is described in her endowment deed as the “pleasure increasing Friday mosque (bir cāmiʿ-i ṣafā-encām) with a silver-like dome (ḳubbe-i sīmīn) in the large village called Mangalia (Manḳālya nām ḳarye-i kebīr), located in the Tekfurköyü district (nāḥiye) within the sanjak (ṣāncāḳ) of Silistra in the province of Rumelia (Rūmili).”24 I find it likely that the continually renovated hipped roof covered with red brick, which crowns both the open and closed spaces of the mosque, may once have featured an inner wooden dome underneath the pyramidal outer protective shell, as is implied by the reference to a “silver-like dome.”
The same reference also suggests that the hipped roof was originally sheathed with lead, a mark of prestige, instead of brick. In fact, the mid-seventeenth-century traveler Evliya Çelebi’s description confirms this deduction. He states that Mangalia’s most excellent Friday mosque, featuring a single minaret and “covered with pure lead in the sultanic manner” (selāṭīn-misāl raṣāṣ-i ḫāṣṣ ile mestūr), was that of İsmihan Sultan. This “light-filled mosque, the likes of which do not exist in these [Black Sea] trading ports,” boasted a large congregation.25 The aesthetic effect of such humble mosques, quite common among contemporary constructions of Sinan, relied on colorfully painted plaster walls and wooden details, including inner domes and porticoes with tall pilasters, instead of marble columns.26 With their extensive use of wood and relatively small scale, these structures crowned by pyramidal hipped roofs came close to Ottoman vernacular residential architecture.
Information is extremely scarce on the Mangalia mosque’s construction process and architectural history. In his 1981 book Ayverdi briefly describes the building that then functioned as a museum, in one part of which prayers were still performed. He was informed by the museum-cum-mosque’s imam that it had been extensively renovated under the auspices of the Romanian state in 1961–62. He published photographs from the 1880s, taken prior to the mosque’s restoration as a museum, along with its measured ground plan and elevation (see figs. 9.5a–b).27 The mosque was restored again by local authorities in the 1990s and surrounded by a tall fence. During its most recent renovation in 2008, the wooden roof was entirely replaced with a new one and the single minaret was consolidated, while the interior walls and the fountain over a well in the yard were also renewed.28 The large garden, surrounding the mosque and functioning as a graveyard, features Ottoman-period tombstones, mostly dating from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, with only a handful from the early seventeenth century. Their inscriptions were published with accompanying photographs soon after being documented during the latest renovation.29
The rectangular mosque with a single-galleried cylindrical minaret is built of ashlar masonry. Its asymmetrical main façade features a curved prayer niche (mihrāb) on the right side of the arched portal, which is flanked by a single pair of two-tiered windows on both sides. There are visible signs of awkward old and new repairs on the walls. The lower windows, for instance, have been enlarged in such a way that their rectangular frames encroach upon the pointed blind-arched lunettes. The painted plaster interior decorations have completely disappeared, and the present flat wooden ceiling is brand new. The mosque’s interior space has a renewed wooden upper gallery above the entrance portal, resting on six sandstone pillars that are presumed to be spolia. Likewise, some large-size regular blocks of cut stone used in the outer face of the mosque’s back wall, which differ from irregular smaller stones at the side and front walls, are believed to have been recovered from the ancient ruins of Callatis. Ancient Callatis was a Greco-Roman trade hub, the archaeological remains of which have been excavated.30
The classical remains were partly visible when Evliya Çelebi visited Mangalia in the mid-seventeenth century. He reported that this was an ancient port whose fortress had been destroyed by Sultan Bayezid I (r. 1389–1401), but its foundations could be seen in the currently inhabited part of the city at the mouth of the harbor. He adds that in olden times the city had a huge harbor protected by two gates, the large stones of which were still visible under the sea. Since many ships sank each year in the present unprotected harbor of the “cruel landing stage,” open to “mountain-like” waves, Evliya wished that the sultan would order the grand admiral’s navy to clean this much-needed silted harbor.31
The simplicity of the Mangalia mosque in comparison to İsmihan Sultan’s ambitious, monumental domed mosque in Istanbul, built during the same years, can be explained by its location in a provincial village with a seemingly small Muslim population at the time it was founded. Unlike neighborhood masjids (mescid) where Friday prayers were not held, Friday mosques (cāmiʿ) were only allowed by Ottoman Hanafi law to be built in cities (şehir) or towns (ḳaṣaba). The princess’s mosque must therefore have been created with an eye to promote future urban development in Mangalia, which was then a “large village.” Sixteenth-century Hanafi jurists in the Ottoman Empire defined cities and towns as places where “Friday prayers are performed, and markets are held.” This politico-juridical definition opened the way to the recognition of large villages possessing their own markets as towns, provided that the reigning sultan approved the performance of the Friday prayer in them with an imperial permit (icāzet-i hümāyūn). During the age of Sinan, the right of the sultans to grant urban status to borderline settlements accelerated the creation of Friday mosques in sparsely inhabited ports and trade routes, which were expected to form the nuclei of new towns.32
Indeed, by the time Evliya Çelebi visited Mangalia, it had evolved into a flourishing commercial port city at the “Silistra sanjak in the territory of Dobruja,” featuring several Friday mosques and masjids, seven elementary schools, three khans, 300 shops, 300 warehouses, a small bedestan (covered market), a small bathhouse, seven coffeehouses, and many taverns. The prosperous town, sited on a flat sandy plain along the seashore, was entirely the waqf of İsmihan Sultan, governed by the trustee of her endowment (mütevellī). Its imams, Friday preachers, and muezzins were all from Istanbul, “that is, zealous and talented gentlemen of refinement” (mücevvid ve pür maʿrifet çelebiler). Evliya observed that the city, with well-built castle-like houses for protection against Cossack pirate attacks, was “surrounded on all sides with orchards and gardens.” It had near its western gardens a “joy-giving” small lodge (tekke) of Bektashi dervishes, called “Muharrem Baba Sultan,” where under the shade of tall trees devotees engaged in soulful conversations after the afternoon prayers.33
According to Evliya, the city, which was a qadi district with a judge, had “very few righteous people.” Dominated by Laz merchants, who generally descended from converts to Islam, its inhabitants included many Greeks and Jews. Since the Lazes strongly disliked Jews, the sharia law court was continually busy with lawsuits between these two groups. The Laz populations venerated the city to such a degree that, if a man could not afford the pilgrimage to Mecca, they would tease him with the witticism, “Hey ignoramous! Go to Mangalia, the Kaʿba of the poor!” Being a “mine of merchants” (kān-i tüccār), the large landing station (iskele) of Mangalia was lined with numerous warehouses. Every year a thousand ships loaded merchandise there, destined for Istanbul, as it was a “major trading port of the Dobruja region” particularly rich in wheat and other types of grain.34
3 Endowments of the Princess for the Mangalia Mosque
To return to İsmihan Sultan’s endowment deed, this document lumps together revenue-producing properties intended for the perpetual upkeep of her three pious monuments in Mangalia and Istanbul in a single-budget income, thus confirming the interconnected legal status of the trio. As keenly noted by Evliya, the princess’s endowments included Mangalia itself, a commercially profitable port for shipping coveted grain supplies to the capital, Istanbul. Ayverdi does not mention an important piece of information provided in her endowment deed; namely, that she was granted the ownership of Mangalia (i.e., its revenues) as a donation from her reigning father with a royal decree in 1568. The same decree lists additional crownlands donated to her during the same year with imperial freehold patents (temlik-i sulṭānī ve iʿṭāʾ-i ḫāḳānī), unlike others that she bought legally in accordance with sharia principles. The copy of Selim II’s decree (nişān-i hümāyūn) appended to her endowment deed lists the tax income generated by villages he bequeathed to “my daughter İsmihan Sultan” (ḳızım İsmiḫān Sulṭān) with imperial freehold patents (mülknāme-i hümāyūn).35
Those lands, entirely concentrated in Rumelia province, were to be exempt from the recruitment of janissary cadettes and state taxes. The princess was free to sell or donate them as her “personal property” (mülk) to whomever she wished, or to endow them as waqfs. Each territory brought an annual income, in addition to her monthly stipend of 300 aspers paid from the royal treasury.36 Her father’s imperial decree first mentions a marketplace in Pogonya (Pogonia) district at the Avlonya sanjak (Vlora, Albania), yielding an income of 3,000 aspers, donated on 28 Cemaziülahir 976 (1568). It then enumerates landed properties subsequently bequeathed as a group on 16 Şaban 975 (1568), which collectively generated a sum of 25,000 aspers: the Mangalia village in the Silistra sanjak (3,500 aspers), villages in the neighboring Black Sea port of Varna, also in the Silistra sanjak (now in Bulgaria, 801 and 550 aspers), villages in the Pravadi district (Provadia in Bulgaria, 700 and 650 aspers), and finally villages in the Dubnica district of the Köstendil sanjak (Kyustendil in Bulgaria, 18,770 aspers).
Besides these landed properties, whose annual income added up to a grand total of 28,000 aspers (about 465 ducats), the economically independent princess endowed a considerable sum of 80,000 dinars (about 1,350 ducats), the accruing legal interest of which was earmarked for the expenses of her waqf.37 Her endowed possessions consisted of villages, arable fields, and commercial buildings along the modern-day Romanian and Bulgarian Black Sea coast, as well as in Albania, Greece, and Istanbul. They included three shops at the Kadırgalimanı mosque complex in Istanbul, a newly built bazaar in the Papuşva village of the Dubnica district in Köstendil, a weekly marketplace in the Pogonya district of the Avlonya sanjak, a river and eight mills in the arable field (mezraʿa) of Yund Alanı in the district of Çirmen (Greece), and in the same arable field three female (cāriye) and seven male slave servants (ḳul) based in a village called Değirmen (lit., Mill), who were likely employed operating her mills.38
The employees of the mosque in Mangalia consisted of a Friday preacher, an imam, two muezzins, two janitors, two caretakers of oil lamps, and Qurʾan reciters. The mosque’s upkeep and its recorded annual expenses were to be checked by endowment administrators sent from the imperial capital each year, indicating that her mosque and the endowed Mangalia village itself had very close ties with Istanbul, as observed above by Evliya.39 The princess’s endowment deed explains that the boundaries of lands donated by her father Selim II were fixed by officers sent from the capital to those sites, who prepared documents demarcating borders (ḥudūdnāmeler), which were then stored at the imperial council hall of Topkapı Palace.40
Likewise, the borders of lands donated to her husband, Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, by imperial decrees in the marshlands of the Banat region in Transylvania were delineated by “stone markers, with the distances between each of them measured in masons’ cubits, except in marshes where markers could not be installed.”41 These crownlands, awarded to him by Sultans Süleyman and Selim II, celebrated major landmarks of his career, particularly his military exploits in Central and Southeastern Europe. They comprised estates in the new Transylvanian (Erdel) principality, which was established in 1541, simultaneously with the province of Budin (Buda) in Hungary. According to his endowment deed, in that region “world famous for its beauty and value,” troops led by Sokollu Mehmed Pasha in 958 (1551) had conquered Becskerek Castle (Beçkerek ḳalesi, now Zrenjanin in Serbia) along with seventeen strongholds (ḥiṣār) subordinate to that castle (see fig. 9.6). For this successful anti-Habsburg Transylvanian campaign, accomplished while the pasha was governor-general of Rumelia, Sultan Süleyman rewarded him in 961 (1553–54) with an “imperial freehold patent” (mülknāme-i hümāyūn), a lake there “known as Bega” (probably named after the Bega/Tisza River). Becskerek was once an island on that nonextant big lake, as shown on the Tabula Hungariae map of 1528 created by Lazarus (Secretarius) soon after the Ottoman victory in Hungary at the Battle of Mohács (1526).42
Süleyman also awarded Sokollu a village and arable fields around Becskerek as third vizier for having subdued in 1555, at the head of an army in the Dobruja region, the rebel Düzme Mustafa, who pretended to be this sultan’s executed insubordinate son, Prince Mustafa (d. 1553). As a reward for commanding, again while he was third vizier, successful imperial troops on behalf of Prince Selim in the succession “War of Princes” at Konya in 966 (1559), Sokollu was granted more villages inside and outside Becskerek Castle. This feat ensured his future father-in-law’s position as heir apparent. The grant was subsequently bestowed by Sultan Selim II in Receb 976 (1568), in fulfillment of a promise he had made as crown prince, assuring the vizier that he would do so upon his accession to the throne.43
Interestingly, all of the landed properties listed in Princess İsmihan’s endowment deed as gifts from her father were also donated during the same year, in 1568. This chronological concurrence once again demonstrates the connectedness of the waqfs of husband and wife, particularly those in Rumelia province, whose governor-general between 1551 and 1555 was Sokollu. While mounting two victorious anti-Habsburg campaigns to Transylvania from Belgrade in 1551 and 1552, he must have developed an intimate familiarity with Ottoman Europe, where he later established waqf endowments. We do not know whether, after their marriage in 1562, İsmihan Sultan accompanied her husband to those lands and to Mangalia. However, the site of her mosque in that village was no doubt selected in consultation with her well-informed spouse, just as the lucrative estates donated to the couple by Selim II in 1568 were almost certainly the ones specifically requested by them.
Princess İsmihan’s endowment deed is of an unusually high literary value, written as it was by the esteemed professor of her madrasa in Eyüb. It praises the “golden lineage” (silsile-i zeheb-neseb) of the Ottoman dynasty, which “ever since its emergence in 699 (1299)” had developed the world with pious and charitable architectural endowments. Following the example of her forebears, “Her Highness İsmihan Sultan (İsmiḫān Sulṭān)” built and endowed for her last journey to the other world monuments “befitting her exalted prestige and decorously suited to her name ‘with the title of khan’ (i.e., ism-i ḫān).” The text continues:
“Aware of this world’s transience, she fully devoted herself to piety, divine worship, pious foundations, and good deeds. Her endurance and resignation on the path of God was such that she even accepted His divine decree after six of her darling children passed away, falling like pearls of pure tears from her moist eyes, one after the other to the earthen grave, becoming concealed from her sight like the soul and sliding away from her eyes like drops filled with blood.”44
The poetically expressed tragic demise of her six infants thus provided the main impetus for the mournful twenty-nine-year-old princess’s architectural patronage. The Venetian diplomat Marcantonio Barbaro (1573), who characterizes Sokollu’s wife as “young and pretty enough,” confirms that every year she gave birth to a son but each of them passed away shortly thereafter.45 According to Gerlach (1576), the couple had recently abandoned their old palace at Kadırgalimanı, which was adjacent to their co-endowed mosque complex. They moved around 1574 to a newly built palace closer to the Hippodrome because the previous one was believed to be haunted by evil spirits, causing the deaths of their children one by one.46 This new residence apparently proved luckier for the couple, judging by Antonio Tiepolo’s (1576) report that they had three surviving infants, two daughters and a son (most probably İbrahim Khan), many others having died from “falling sickness.”47
According to the stipulations of her endowment deed dated 1573, the princess would personally administer her own endowments by means of her household steward, Hüsrev Kethüda b. Abdurrahman, who also managed the endowments of her husband. After her death, the waqf would be administered by her children and grandchildren over the generations. Should their bloodline cease, they were to be replaced by the freed male slaves of her husband. The surplus income of her waqf had to be used for repairing dilapidated mosques and madrasas, buying clothes for poor children, paving roads, and building bridges. Every year twenty needy daughters of her own freed female slaves and ten other poor women would each be given a marriage dowry of 4,000 aspers (about 400 ducats). The remaining surplus of 4,000 aspers was to be distributed as marriage dowries to five orphan girls and poor widows. The leftover income would be used by İsmihan Sultan’s children and the children of her children in perpetuity. It is noteworthy that these stipulations embody conspicuous gender concerns, which shed light on the humanistic personal orientations of the generous princess.48
4 Entwined Endowments as Connective Transregional Networks
The fact that Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s waqfs were intimately intertwined with those of his wife in and near Mangalia becomes evident from previously unnoticed clues in his endowment deed. Since his numerous endowments are too many to enumerate, I have plotted them on a map to chart his major constructions that invigorated regions extending from Central and Southeastern Europe all the way to Anatolia, Syria, and the Hijaz (see fig. 9.7).49 It is particularly meaningful that Sokollu’s income-generating endowments included places in Mangalia, excluded from my map as they were relatively minor commercial structures. These waqfs are described in the grand vizier’s endowment deed as follows: “At the district (ḳażā) of Tekfurköy in the village of Mangalia, also known as Hisarlık (lit., with a fortress),” he endowed twelve shops, a warehouse, and a bakery for bread.50 This alternative name associated with Mangalia probably refers to the remains of the medieval fortress of Pangalia that Bayezid I had demolished in 1392.51
Sokollu’s other waqfs concentrated along the Black Sea littoral complemented those of the couple in Mangalia. For instance, he built a nonextant covered market or bedestan (bezzāzistān) at the port city of Balchik (Balçık) subordinate to Varna (now in northeast Bulgaria). His endowment deed describes it as a vaulted building “in the manner of a bedestan at the middle,” bounded by forty-eight surrounding shops, twenty-four upper-story rooms, ten warehouses, and ten toilets.52 Sokollu built another now lost bedestan with a central masjid in the neighboring coastal town of Varna where, as we have seen, his wife also owned landed properties. It is described as a bedestan comprising twenty-six shops and fifteen warehouses, with a neighboring khan and, in front of it, six shops. The pasha endowed several windmills, waterwheels, and agricultural lands along the riverfronts of Varna and adjoining rivers.
Another group of monuments sponsored by Sokollu further inland were also sited on riverbanks. One of these was a grandiose bedestan and khan complex built in Belgrade, at the sanjak of Semendire (Smederevo, Serbia). This city at the confluence of the Danube and Sava Rivers was conquered in 1521 during Sultan Süleyman’s reign. The grand vizier’s complex, located outside the fortified walls of Belgrade, in a suburb (varoş) “at the quarter of the Ferhad Pasha mosque,” had numerous abutting shops and a channel of sweet water, the surplus flow of which was distributed to fountains named after Sokollu inside the city. This major revenue-producing structure was built ca. 1567–74 along a paved road to Ragusa (modern Dubrovnik), an autonomous tributary republic under Ottoman protection. It catered to regional and transregional commerce dominated by resident Ragusan and Ottoman Jewish merchants.53
Around the same time the grand vizier created a commemorative complex (ca. 1572–74) endowed for the soul of his late son Kurt Kasım Beg, who passed away as the sanjak governor of Herzegovina (Hersek), whose capital Mostar was three days’ journey from Ragusa. This charitable complex constructed by Ragusan stonemasons at Trebinje (in modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina) was also sited along the caravan route to Ragusa. It was comprised of a small masjid (mescid), a sumptuous caravanserai (ribāṭ) for travelers who might gratefully pray on behalf of the deceased, a source of running water (miyāh, sebīl), a paved road (ḳāldırım), and a stone bridge (cisr) over the Neretva River providing access to the Adriatic Sea. Only the bridge remains from this charge-free benevolent complex.54
The pasha’s commercial complex in Belgrade occupied the site of three deserted churches and a synagogue unable to pay taxes, which he had purchased in 1567 and demolished.55 During the height of his grand vizierate, the legal status of churches and monasteries became transformed by imperial decrees Selim II dispatched to sanjak governors throughout Rumelia between 1567 and 1571. The recipients were informed that it was no longer legally permissible to renew the title deeds that the ruler’s non-Muslim subjects had sent for renewal upon his accession to the throne in 1566. The grand mufti, Ebussuud (d. 1574), issued a fatwa announcing that from now on it was illegal to endow lands and landed properties owned by the state to non-Muslim religious sanctuaries, which were allowed to buy back their lands from the state in return for a deed (tapu) on condition that they agreed to pay a tithe and other taxes. The lands of inactive endowments would be confiscated or sold by the royal treasury.56 This revenue-increasing measure, attributed to Ebussuud’s centralization of lands in accordance with sharia principles, meant that the abandoned estates of non-Muslim sanctuaries provided new spaces for other buildings. One of those structures was Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s bedestan and caravanserai complex in Belgrade. Another example was Princess İsmihan’s Friday mosque at the complex she co-endowed with her spouse in the Kadırgalimanı quarter of Istanbul, which replaced a church.57
One must remember that those years were taken up with naval battles in the Mediterranean, first the victorious Ottoman campaign against Venetian Cyprus (1570–71), for which preparations began in 1568, and then the Lepanto disaster (1571) inflicted by the Holy League. This was an imperial age of confessionalization throughout Eurasia, during which the Christian frontiers of Ottoman Europe experienced religious ferment provoked by the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-Reformation. Divided today between Romania and Bulgaria, the Dobruja region in Rumelia province, where İsmihan Sultan’s Mangalia mosque is located, had been under Ottoman rule since the early fifteenth century. This region was situated at the Danubian frontier of the three Romanian tributary states (Wallachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania), which became more fully integrated into the Ottoman central administration after the mid-sixteenth century. Caught between rival Ottoman-Habsburg imperial claims over the Kingdom of Hungary, the Romanian principalities forged independent religious identities, as did their Catholic and Muslim neighbors. Wallachia (Eflak) and Moldavia (Boğdan) strengthened Orthodox Christianity by boosting the construction of churches and monasteries. The principality of Transylvania (Erdel), on the other hand, constituted a novel multiconfessional experiment backed by the Ottoman state. The official promulgation of personal religious freedom in 1568 encouraged the flourishment of Protestant movements (Lutheran, Calvinist, and Unitarian) to the detriment of Catholic and Orthodox Christians residing in Transylvania.
As is well known, the Ottomans actively supported Orthodox and Protestant Christianity to weaken their Catholic Habsburg rivals allied with the papacy. Hence, Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s religiosity as a devout Muslim did not contradict his active role in the restoration of the defunct Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate in Peć (İpek, near Kosovo) in 1557, at a medieval Byzantine-style monastery complex where his Christian relatives would serve as patriarchs for several generations. Other Serbian Orthodox monasteries and churches were also renovated, expanded, and painted with frescoes during and after his grand vizierate.58 The confessional autonomy of the Romanian principalities was endorsed by Ottoman regulations that strictly forbade the construction of mosques in their domains, just as Muslims were not allowed to own land and landed properties therein.59 Thus, geopolitical frontiers became increasingly delineated by monuments that signaled regional religious identities in these contact zones, which were characterized by augmented cultural intermingling.
Seen from such a wide-lens perspective, İsmihan Sultan’s Friday mosque in Mangalia can be interpreted as one of the building blocks of a wider imperial project aimed to simultaneously boost Islamization, urbanization, and economic development in the European territories of the Ottoman Empire. Rectangular Friday mosques with hipped pyramidal roofs, like hers in Mangalia, were built and endowed around the same time by her husband in fiefs donated to him by imperial decrees. One of them was a now lost Friday mosque and elementary school for teaching the Qurʾan to Muslim children, completed around 1573, inside the previously mentioned Becskerek Castle. According to his endowment deed, the pasha built this complex in order to “decorate” that predominantly Christian region with monuments of Islam. The text poetically likens the mosque inside that castle to a bubble in a pool (ḥavż) and to a rose in a rose garden, allusions to the insular ecology of Becskerek in the midst of a lake and to the bucolic setting of the sanctuary. Near this mosque, Sokollu created an endowed garden (bostān, gülistān) and elementary school, and also constructed at a suburb (varoş) of Becskerek a bathhouse with twenty-two neighboring shops. These structures were accompanied by five other shops and a grand mansion comprising six shops inside the nearby fortress of Temeşvar (Temesvár, now Timişiora, Romania). The latter was conquered a year after Becskerek and transformed into the capital of a new province in 1552 during a campaign led by the vizier Kara Ahmed Pasha, whom Sokollu had assisted as the governor-general of Rumelia.60
The grand vizier’s endowment deed also mentions his masjid with “a lead-covered” hipped roof and elementary school in his birthplace, the village of “Ṣoḳolovik” (Sokolovići) in the district of Višegrad in Bosnia. Near that masjid, fronted by a wooden-pillared portico, he created a public fountain along an avenue to which drinking water was brought via a channel. The masjid (rebuilt in the twentieth century, except for its original minaret) and its extinct dependencies contributed to the Islamization of that village on the Lim River, the longest tributary of the Drina. This complex expressed its founder’s persistent preoccupation with kinship ties, endowed as it was for the soul of his father who had converted to Islam as Cemalüddin Sinan Beg.61 The endowment deed refers to Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s celebrated bridge over the Drina, the subject of a novel by the Nobel Prize winning Yugoslavian author Ivo Andrić, as a “monumental stone bridge with twelve arches” at Višegrad. At the head of that bridge, dated 979 (1571–72), was a now lost hospice (ʿimāret) providing free food to travelers, fifty-four shops, and a sweet-water channel supplying the grand vizier’s neighboring public fountains.62
A comparable Islamization program that went hand in hand with an urban and economic development strategy characterized the architectural patronage of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s aforementioned nephew Mustafa Pasha (d. 1578). This governor-general of Buda commissioned Sinan to design for him a monumental Friday mosque with a lead-covered dome in Buda, the administrative capital of the recently established province in Ottoman Hungary. The vanished mosque that comprised the founder’s mausoleum was complemented by another one in Pest, and a series of neighborhood masjids curiously dedicated to the souls of the Prophet Muhammad, the latter’s daughter Fatima, and each of the four Sunni caliphs. The pasha’s socioreligious and commercial monuments, of which only a few bathhouses have survived, transformed Buda and Pest into a composite Ottoman city (Budapest), linked together by his new bridge resting on boats across the Danube. Sokollu Mustafa Pasha’s remarkable construction activities throughout Bosnia and Hungary, where he successively served as sanjak governor and governor-general, fostered urbanization, improved travel conditions, and promoted Sunni Islam. He enhanced communications in underdeveloped places by building bridges, paved roads, and caravanserais, transforming his birthplace Rudo from a Christian Bosnian village into a prosperous Muslim town settled with 500 tax-exempt households for whom residences were built. In 963 (1555) the pasha endowed there a Friday mosque, elementary school, bathhouse, caravanserai, and a weekly bazaar at the head of his bridge spanning the Lim River.63
5 Concluding Remarks
In concert with their relatives who circulated as governors in the empire’s provinces, İsmihan Sultan and Sokollu Mehmed Pasha played a considerable role in the development of seaside and riverbed ports along the Black Sea littoral and connected streams.64 By collaboratively sponsoring a collection of charitable and income-producing architectural monuments with linked destinies, the grand vizier and his royal wife promoted Islamic socioreligious institutions, education, culture, commerce, travel, and pilgrimage. The profit-making structures endowed to support the couple’s pious charitable foundations included lands, weekly markets, khans, bedestans, shops, warehouses, rental houses, bakeries, mills, artisanal workshops, bathhouses, waterwheels, water channels, fountains, dairy farms, bridges, and paved roads.
Shifting our gaze from a panoramic perspective back to the close-up view of the Mangalia mosque, with which the present essay began, affirms that this seemingly generic monument and others like it merit further scrutiny. While being one of the integral components of an empire-wide construction program, this mosque also carried deeply personal meanings for the forlorn princess mourning the recent deaths of her children. Both dimensions, however, have previously escaped notice because architectural production in the Ottoman provinces has been studied in separate national and geographic compartments, just as women’s patronage has been marginalized by gender segregation in the scholarship instead of being viewed in relation to that of men. This double segregation of interrelated projects has been detrimental to perceiving the “larger picture,” as amply demonstrated by the present case study.
The ongoing interest in Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s widely cast patronage web would be enriched by considering him in relation to his royal wife, to whom he largely owed his immense power. The interdependent architectural endowments of Princess İsmihan Sultan and Sokollu Mehmed Pasha constituted an extensive network, many of its units concentrated on the main land route diagonally cutting across the Ottoman Empire and dotting the port cities of the Black Sea, Mediterranean, and Adriatic, as well as riverbanks connected to those interlinked seas. These monuments marking focal points of passage reflected a persistent preoccupation with communications and connections throughout the empire and beyond with their infrastructure of roads, bridges, and ports that stimulated mobility. The same vision was manifested in the grand vizier’s unrealized state projects, including the creation of a canal in Suez, and another one connecting the Don with the Volga.65 As such, the vast waqf empire of this power couple perfectly resonated with our collective research project, exploring connected art histories “From Riverbed to Seashore.”
Afyoncu, Erhan. “Sokollu Mehmed Paşa.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 37: 354–357. Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi, 2009.
Albèri, Eugenio, ed. Le relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al Senato durante il secolo XVI, Serie III, Relazioni degli stati ottomani. 3 vols. Florence: Società editrice fiorentina, 1840–1855.
Andrejević, Andrej. “Sokollu Mehmet Pasha’s Contribution to the Building of the City of Belgrade.” In 8th International Congress of Turkish Art, 3: 1627–1636. 3 vols. Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Milli Kütüphane Basımevi, 1983.
Ankara, Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü (VGM) [archive], Defter 572.
Ankara, Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü (VGM) [archive], Defter 610.
Ankara, Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü (VGM) [archive], Defter 2104.
Ankara, Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü (VGM) [archive], Küçük Evkaf 43, Defter 2.
Ayverdi, Ekrem Hakkı, with the collaboration of Aydın Yüksel. Avrupa’da Osmanlı Mimârî Eserleri. 3 vols. Istanbul: Istanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1981.
Božinović, Vladimir, and Viktor Popović. “Analysis of Documentation about Ottoman Heritage in Belgrade via Digital Reconstruction of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Caravanserai.” In Balkanlarda Osmanlı Vakıfları ve Eserleri Uluslararası Sempozyumu, 341–352. Ankara: Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü, 2012.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
. “ , and Božinović, Vladimir Viktor Popović Analysis of Documentation about Ottoman Heritage in Belgrade via Digital Reconstruction of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Caravanserai.” In Balkanlarda Osmanlı Vakıfları ve Eserleri Uluslararası Sempozyumu, 341– 352. Ankara: Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü, . 2012
Cavalli, Marino. Eine unbekannte venezianische Relazion über die Türkei (1567), edited by Willy Andreas, 1–13: Relatione de le cose di Costantinopoli del 1567 (Hauck Nr. 6): In Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaft, Stiftung Heinrich Lanz, Philosopisch-historische Klasse 5, Abhandlung. Heidelberg, 1914.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
. Eine unbekannte venezianische Relazion über die Türkei (1567), edited by Willy Andreas, 1–13: Relatione de le cose di Costantinopoli del 1567 (Hauck Nr. 6): In Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaft, Stiftung Heinrich Lanz, Philosopisch-historische Klasse 5, Abhandlung. Cavalli, Marino Heidelberg, . 1914
Crane, Howard, and Esra Akın, eds. and trans. Sinan’s Autobiographies: Five Sixteenth-Century Texts. Edited with a preface by Gülru Necipoğlu. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006.
Ćurčić, Slobodan. “Byzantine Legacy in Ecclesiastical Architecture of the Balkans after 1453.” In The Byzantine Legacy of Eastern Europe, edited by Lowell Clucas, 59–81. Boulder: East European Monographs; New York: distributed by Columbia University Press, 1988.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
. “ Ćurčić, Slobodan Byzantine Legacy in Ecclesiastical Architecture of the Balkans after 1453.” In The Byzantine Legacy of Eastern Europe, edited by , Lowell Clucas 59– 81. Boulder: East European Monographs; New York: distributed by Columbia University Press, . 1988
Emecen, Feridun. “İbrahim Han.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 21: 316–317. Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi, 2000.
Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Zılli. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. Vol. 3, edited by Seyit Ali Kahraman and Yücel Dağlı. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1999.
Fotić, Aleksandr. “The Official Explanations for the Confiscation and Sale of Monasteries (Churches) and Their Estates at the Time of Selim II.” Turcica 26 (1994): 35–54.
Istanbul, Süleymaniye Library, MS Lala İsmail 737.
Istanbul, Fatih Millet Library, MS Tarih 933.
Káldy-Nagy, Gyula. “Macht und Immobiliarvermögen eines türkischen Beglerbegs im 16. Jahrhundert.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae 25 (1972): 441–451.
Kármán, Gábor, and Lovro Kunčević, eds. The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2013.
Karpat, Kemal H. “Dobruca.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 9: 482–486. Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi, 1996.
Kunčević, Lovro. “Janus-faced Sovereignty: The International Status of the Ragusan Republic in the Early Modern Period.” In The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, edited by Gábor Kármán and Lovro Kunčević, 91–121. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2013.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
. “ Kunčević, Lovro Janus-faced Sovereignty: The International Status of the Ragusan Republic in the Early Modern Period.” In The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, edited by , and Gábor Kármán Lovro Kunčević 91– 121. Leiden, Boston: Brill, . 2013
Lala Comneno, Maria Adelaide. “Notes Upon the Architectural Patronage of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha in the Ottoman Bosnia.” In 9th International Congress of Turkish Art, 2: 417–423. 2 vols. Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Milli Kütüphane Basımevi, 1995.
Necipoğlu, Gülru. “Connectivity, Mobility, and Mediterranean ‘Portable Archaeology’: Pashas from the Dalmatian Hinterland as Cultural Mediators.” In Dalmatia and the Mediterranean: Portable Archaeology and the Poetics of Influence, edited by Alina Payne, 313–381. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2014.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
. “ Necipoğlu, Gülru Connectivity, Mobility, and Mediterranean ‘Portable Archaeology’: Pashas from the Dalmatian Hinterland as Cultural Mediators.” In Dalmatia and the Mediterranean: Portable Archaeology and the Poetics of Influence, edited by , Alina Payne 313– 381. Leiden and Boston: Brill, . 2014
Necipoğlu, Gülru. “Plans and Models in 15th and 16th-Century Ottoman Architectural Practice.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 45, no. 3 (1986): 224–243.
Necipoğlu, Gülru. The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire. London: Reaktion Books, 2005, second edition 2011.
Özgüven, Burcu. “A ‘Beylerbeyi’ from Budin: Sokollu Mustafa.” In Essays in Honour of Aptullah Kuran, edited by Çiğdem Kafescioğlu and Lucienne Thys-Şenocak, 253–263. Istanbul: Yapı ve Kredi Yayınevi, 1999.
Peirce, Leslie P. The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Samardžić, Radovan. Mehmed Sokolovitch: Le destin d’un grand vizir. Translated by Mauricette Begić. Lausanne: L’Age d’homme, 1994.
Stănescu, H. “Monuments d’art turc en Dobrouja.” Studia et acta Orientalia/Société des sciences historiques et philologiques de la R.P.R., Section d’études orientales 3 (1961): 177–189.
Székely, B. “Rediscovering the Old Treasures of Cartography: What an Almost 500-Year-Old-Map Can Tell to a Geoscientist.” Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica Hungarica 44, no. 1 (2009): 3–16.
The name of the mosque’s patron is spelled “Esmāhān” in some publications, but I prefer to use the correct spelling in her endowment deed cited below, which is consistently “İsmiḫān.”
Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, in collaboration with Aydın Yüksel, Avrupa’da Osmanlı Mimârî Eserleri (Istanbul: Istanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1981), 1: 42–43, figures 68–78. I am grateful to Horia Moldovan for bringing to my attention the few relevant publications by Romanian scholars: Nicolae Iorga’s article on mosques in Romania, “Moschei pe pământ românesc,” Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice anul 22 (1929): 184–87; and H. Stănescu, “Monuments d’art turc en Dobrouja,” Studia et acta Orientalia/Société des sciences historiques et philologiques de la R.P.R., Section d’études orientales 3 (1961): 177–89. Using the mid-seventeenth-century description by the Ottoman traveler Evliya Çelebi, Stănescu correctly identified the Mangalia mosque’s patron as Selim II’s daughter but spelled her name as “Esmahan Sultan.”
Gülru Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire (London: Reaktion Books, 2005, 2011), 331–68. The Mangalia mosque is referred to on 333, 542n280 in Howard Crane and Esra Akın, Sinan’s Autobiographies: Five Sixteenth-Century Texts (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006).
On a related article exploring the portability of architecture despite the immobility of buildings, see Gülru Necipoğlu, “Connectivity, Mobility, and Mediterranean ‘Portable Archaeology’: Pashas from the Dalmatian Hinterland as Cultural Mediators,” in Dalmatia and the Mediterranean: Portable Archaeology and the Poetics of Influence, ed. Alina Payne (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2014), 313–81.
On the biographies of this couple, see Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 40–41, 43–44, 331–68; Erhan Afyoncu, “Sokollu Mehmed Paşa,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi, 2009), 37: 354–57; and Radovan Samardžić, Mehmed Sokolovitch: Le destin d’un grand vizir, trans. Mauricette Begić (Lausanne: L’Age d’homme, 1994).
The Ottoman chief architect Sinan’s autobiographies do not identify all of the monuments designed by him or by assistants in his office; lists of monuments appended to the autobiographies generally omit the names of masjids and masjid-like small Friday mosques. For the use of plans, see Gülru Necipoğlu, “Plans and Models in 15th and 16th-Century Ottoman Architectural Practice,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 45, no. 3 (1986): 224–43; Age of Sinan, 161–76.
On sixteenth-century documents mentioning city architects in these two provinces, see Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 139–40, 157–58.
Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 331–36.
Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 333, 542n278. Copies of İsmihan’s endowment deed, recorded at the beginning of Ramadan 980, are preserved in the Ankara, Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü (hereafter VGM), Defter 572, no. 53: 134–59; and in an incomplete version at the Istanbul Süleymaniye Library, MS Lala İsmail 737, no. 2, fols. 27b–40a. Copies of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s endowment deed, registered at the end of Zilhicce 981, are in VGM, Defter 572, no. 20: 27–62 (translated into modern Turkish in Defter 2104, no. 323: 442–78); and in Istanbul, Fatih Millet Library, MS Tarih 933, fols. 1a–5b, 18b–47b; with an incomplete version in Süleymaniye, MS Lala İsmail 737, fols. 203a–208a.
Feridun Emecen, “İbrahim Han,” Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi, 2000), 21: 316–17. Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s endowments came to be named as the İbrahim Khanzade waqfs, which are recorded alongside the separate waqfs of İsmihan Sultan in VGM, Küçük Evkaf 43, Defter 2, dated 21 Ca. 1233. See Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 333, 542n276–77.
Marino Cavalli, “Eine unbekannte venezianische Relazion über die Türkei (1567), edited by Willy Andreas: Relatione de le cose di Costantinopoli del 1567,” in Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Stiftung Heinrich Lanz, Philosopisch-historische Klasse 5, Abhandlung (Heidelberg, 1914), 12.
Cited in Samardžić, Mehmed Sokolovitch, 298.
Eugenio Albèri, Le relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al Senato durante il secolo XVI, Serie III, Relazioni degli stati ottomani (Florence: Società editrice fiorentina, 1840–55), 1: 400–01, 406.
Samuel Gerlach, Stephan Gerlachs des aeltern Tage-Buch (Frankfurt am Mayn: In Verlegung Johann-David Zunners, 1674), 266, 349, 384, 398.
Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 332, 542n251–52.
Gerlach, Stephan Gerlachs, 349.
Gerlach, Stephan Gerlachs, 349.
Gerlach, Stephan Gerlachs, 383–84.
Gerlach, Stephan Gerlachs, 349.
Gerlach, Stephan Gerlachs, 58, 398.
On İsmihan’s second husband, Kalaylıkoz Ali Pasha, and their infant son Mahmud, who died within fifty days, see Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 331, 542n246.
The date 1525 was given in an old outdoor signboard now replaced with a new one providing the correct date of 1573. In a larger signboard recounting the mosque’s history, the date 1525 is crossed out and replaced with 1573. This signboard makes the unsubstantiated claim that “Esmahan Sultan” visited Mangalia, where she “took refuge,” and misidentifies her as the daughter of “Solyman II” who built the mosque “in the memory of” her father. The erroneous date 1575 is provided in the Wikipedia entry, “Mangalia Mosque.” And 1590 is the date given in Kemal H. Karpat, “Dobruca,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi, 1996), 9: 482–86, at 485.
On these complexes, see Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 332–45. They are typically named after Sokollu Mehmed Paşa in Erhan Afyoncu, “Sokullu Mehmed Paşa,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi, 2009), 37: 357–63. For other monuments by some, but not all, royal women named after their husbands or fathers, see Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 69, 270, 305, 372.
“Rūmilinde Silistre ṣāncāġında Tekfurköyi nāḥiyesinde Manḳālya nām ḳarye-i kebīr içre bir cāmiʿ-i ṣafā-encām,” VGM, Defter 572, no. 53, 149; and Süleymaniye Library, MS Lala İsmail 737, no. 2, fol. 34v.
Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Zılli, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, eds. Seyit Ali Kahraman and Yücel Dağlı (Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1999), 3: 201.
For examples, see Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 278–80, 293–96, 400–1, 483–92, 502–5.
Ayverdi, Avrupa’da Osmanlı Mimârî Eserleri, 1: 42–43, figures 68–78.
Currently located in the south end of Costanta County (Ottoman Köstence) in Romania, the Mangalia mosque is said to serve a community of 800 Muslim families, mostly of Turkish and Tatar ethnicity. This was one of the towns to which Kipchak Turks and Tatars from Crimea immigrated during the Ottoman-Russian War of 1877–78: See Kemal H. Karpat, “Dobruca,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi, 1996), 9: 482–86.
On the tombstone inscriptions, see Lütfi Şeyban, “Mankalya Esmâ Sultan Câmii Haziresi Mezartaşı Kitabeleri,” Belleten 74 (2010): 389–420.
The Callatis Archaeological Museum in Mangalia, inaugurated in 1959, preserves artifacts from the Neolithic, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine periods. According to Stănescu, “Monuments d’art turc en Dobrouja,” the Mangalia mosque’s cemetery garden covers a section of ancient Callatis, and the mosque incorporates spolia.
Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Zılli, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, 3: 201.
Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 55–57.
Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Zılli, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, 3: 201.
Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Zılli, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, 3: 201.
Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 333–34. The decree written in Istanbul on 26 Receb 976 (1569) is copied in VGM, Defter 572, no. 53: 150–51.
VGM, Defter 572, no. 53: 141–46. İsmihan’s salary in 1575 was higher than that of her younger sister Gevherhan (250 aspers), but lower than those of her aunt Mihrümah (600 aspers) and Safiye Sultan (700 aspers), who was the chief consort of her reigning brother Sultan Murad III; see Leslie P. Peirce, The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 127–29.
VGM, Defter 572, no. 53: 150–51.
Her waqf properties are listed in Ayverdi, Avrupa’da Osmanlı Mimârî Eserleri, 1: 42.
Süleymaniye Library, MS Lala İsmail 737, no. 2, fols. 35a–b.
VGM, Defter 572, no. 53: 141–51; and Süleymaniye Library, MS Lala İsmail 737, no. 2, fol. 34b.
Fatih Millet Library, MS Tarih 933, fol. 3a, “nice ṭāşlar dikilüp ʿalāmetler vażʿ olunup, her iki ʿalāmetüñ mābeyni bennā zirāʿıyla ölçülmüşdür, meger ki mābeynlerinde sāzlıklar ve batāḳlar olup, vażʿa mecāl olmaya, anlar ḳalmışdur.”
The map prepared by Lazarus, a secretary at the episcopal center of Esztergom, demonstrates that major watercourses (particularly the Danube and Bega/Tisza) in the Banat region have changed over time; see B. Székely, “Rediscovering the Old Treasures of Cartography: What an Almost 500-Year-Old-Map Can Tell to a Geoscientist,” Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica Hungarica 44, no. 1 (2009): 3–16.
Fatih Millet Library, MS Tarih 933, fols. 1a–5b, 45b–47b. Slightly different dates are provided in a copy of the “temliknāme” of Becskerek Castle given to Sokollu Mehmed Pasha by Selim II (translated into modern Turkish in VGM, Defter 2104, 478–79, from the original document in Defter 610, no. 303: 270), which states that this castle, its villages, and agricultural fields were donated to Sokollu by Sultan Süleyman in 963 (1555–56). When Sokollu asked for the renewal of that property deed (mülknāme) upon building his Friday mosque there, it was renewed by Selim II at the end of Şaban 974 (1567). A well and three mills bestowed by Sultan Süleyman in 961 (1553–54) were also renewed then; VGM, Defter 610, no. 304: 271 (translated in Defter 2104, 480). Other property deeds dating from 975 to 977 (1565–69) and mid-Ramadan 982 (1574) are listed in Defter 610 (translated in Defter 2104, 488–89).
Translated in Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 333; from the manuscript kept at the Süleymaniye Library: MS Lala İsmail 737, fols. 32r–33v.
Albèri, Relazioni degli stati ottomani, 1: 320, 405.
Gerlach, Stephan Gerlachs des aeltern Tage-Buch, 267.
Albèri, Relazioni degli stati ottomani, 1: 156–57.
Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 333–34, 542n282–83.
For a list of Sokollu’s endowments, see Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 331–68, esp. 345–48.
“Tekfurköyi ḳażāsında Ḥiṣārlıḳ dimekle maʿrūf Manḳālya ḳaryesi,” VGM, Defter 572, no. 20: 35.
Evliya Çelebi only mentions the ruins of the nonextant Mangalia fortress. According to Stănescu, “Monuments d’art turc en Dobrouja,” ancient Callatis became the medieval port of Pangalia under the Genoese, whose fortress was destroyed by Sultan Bayezid I. He cites the 1444 travelogue of Jean de Wawrin according to whom the city, already called Mangalia, was a fortress of the Turks and Crimean “Mengli” Tatars.
Fatih Millet Library, MS Tarih 933, fol. 22a.
VGM, Defter 572, no. 20: 28, 31, 35, 37. The Ragusan road (kamin) is mentioned by Stephan Gerlach, who saw the nearly completed complex under construction in 1573; Gerlach, Stephan Gerlachs des aeltern Tage-Buch, 16, 529–31. Discussed in Andrej Andrejević, “Sokollu Mehmet Pasha’s Contribution to the Building of the City of Belgrade,” in 8th International Congress of Turkish Art (Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Milli Kütüphane Basımevi, 1983), 3: 1627–36; Vladimir Božinović and Viktor Popović, “Analysis of Documentation about Ottoman Heritage in Belgrade via Digital Reconstruction of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Caravanserai,” in Balkanlarda Osmanlı Vakıfları ve Eserleri Uluslararası Sempozyumu (Ankara: Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü, 2012), 341–52. On the multifaceted tributary status of the Ragusan Republic, see Lovro Kunčević, “Janus-faced Sovereignty: The International Status of the Ragusan Republic in the Early Modern Period,” The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, eds. Gábor Kármán and Lovro Kunčević (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2013), 91–121.
Süleymaniye Library, Lala İsmail MS 737, fol. 76a–b; Fatih Millet Library, MS Tarih 933, fol. 46a. See Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 444; Ayverdi, Avrupa’da Osmanlı Mimârî Eserleri, 2: 469–70. The bridge was originally built in the Arslanagić village north of Trebinje but subsequently moved closer to Trebinje around 1970–72. On the importation of Ragusan masons for Ottoman buildings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, see Necipoğlu, “Connectivity, Mobility, and Mediterranean ‘Portable Archaeology,’” 333 and 333n33, 347 and 347n57.
Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 58; Andrejević, “Sokollu Mehmet Pasha’s Contribution,” 1627–28.
Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 58. Aleksandr Fotić, “The Official Explanations for the Confiscation and Sale of Monasteries (Churches) and Their Estates at the Time of Selim II,” Turcica 26 (1994): 35–54.
Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 58, 336, 344.
Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 58; Slobodan Ćurčić, “Byzantine Legacy in Ecclesiastical Architecture of the Balkans after 1453,” in The Byzantine Legacy of Eastern Europe, ed. Lowell Clucas (Boulder: East European Monographs; New York: distributed by Columbia University Press, 1988), 59–81; Maria Adelaide Lala Comneno, “Notes Upon the Architectural Patronage of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha in the Ottoman Bosnia,” in 9th International Congress of Turkish Art (Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Milli Kütüphane Basımevi, 1995), 2: 417–23.
On the Romanian tributary states, see Tasin Gemil, Romanians and Ottomans in the XIVth–XVth Centuries (Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedicã, 2009); and essays in Gábor Kármán and Lovro Kunćević, The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2013).
Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 346–47. The Becskerek mosque’s personnel consisted of a Friday preacher, an imam, two muezzins, and a janitor; Fatih Millet Library, MS Tarih 933, fols. 1b–5b; and VGM, Defter 572, no. 20: 28–29, 37.
Fatih Millet Library, MS Tarih 933, fols. 1a–5b, 45b; and VGM, Defter 572, no. 20: 28–29, 31–32, 37. On the rebuilt mosque and its now lost dependencies, see Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 346; Ayverdi, Avrupa’da Osmanlı Mimârî Eserleri, 2: 422–23.
The Bridge on the Drina was published in 1945. The seven Friday mosques and seven masjids endowed by Sokollu Mehmed Pasha are listed along with his other waqfs in Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 346–47. On his bridge and waqfs in Višegrad, see Ayverdi, Avrupa’da Osmanlı Mimârî Eserleri, 2: 495–511.
On Sokollu Mustafa Pasha’s waqfs, see Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 439–40; Gyula Káldy-Nagy, “Macht und Immobiliarvermögen eines türkischen Beglerbegs im 16. Jahrhundert,” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae 25 (1972): 441–51; Burcu Özgüven, “A ‘Beylerbeyi’ from Budin: Sokollu Mustafa,” in Essays in Honour of Aptullah Kuran, eds. Çiğdem Kafescioğlu and Lucienne Thys-Şenocak (Istanbul, 1999), 253–63.
İsmihan Sultan’s relatives had waqf properties in Southeastern and Central Europe, which supported their charitable-pious monuments elsewhere in the empire: her mother Nurbanu Sultan, her father Sultan Selim II, her brother Sultan Murad III, her aunt Mihrümah Sultan, and her sisters (Gevherhan Sultan, Shah Sultan, Fatma Sultan) and their vizier husbands.
Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 247.